New EU Law Could Force Apple to Allow Other App Stores, Sideloading, and iMessage Interoperability

[HenrySalayne]

1 minute ago, Dominik W said:

Then don't quote me.

Then please refrain from quoting me in the future, if you don't want a response.

[LAwLz]

38 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Because you state an opinion as fact.

When did I state an opinion as a fact exactly?

When I said sideloading on iOS won't be the end of the world? I am fairly sure the world won't end if iOS users are allowed to install whichever program they want on their phones.

 

 

38 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Even more so, you're implying the store is everything a Mac user needs. Completely in contrast to reality.

No I didn't. I specifically said MOST people do not sideload programs on MacOS, which I strongly believe is true.

If it is in contrast with reality then I'd like for you to show some evidence of that. 

The Mac app store contains over 1.8 million apps. I am not aware of any big company avoiding to release their app in the Mac app store either. 

I strongly doubt the average user will sideload programs on MacOS.

 

 

41 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

This might be a generational thing because the Mac users I know haven't jumped on the hype train in the last few years, but not a single person is using the store exclusively.

So let me get this straight.

You come in to this thread and laughs at me and say I am tragic because I am so out of touch with reality. Then when I question you, your response is basically "well who knows, maybe I am wrong. I know a few old MacOS and they don't do what you say"? OK...

 

 

By the way, I think you missed the overall point of my post since you got very focused on the particular wording in one sentence.

My point was that even if sideloading became mandatory on iOS, I think most people would still stick with the app store because of some key advantages competing stores wouldn't have.

You missed the part where I specified that these were my opinions and beliefs, rather than facts. The part where I said things like "I am sure" and "probably". You usually don't say those things when presenting facts. 

[Omni-Owl]

On 11/2/2022 at 9:51 PM, Holmes108 said:

I'm not a fan of Apple, and went with Android in the early days specifically because of this type of stuff (sideloading, etc), but I also don't agree with all this regulation, and in general believe that people should be able to run their business how they see fit (with some obvious exceptions relating to safety, essential goods, etc). 

 

As much as I'd like to occasionally see arrogant Apple fall on their face, in this case I'd almost like to see them leave Europe (will never happen), and let the angry customers take it out on their politicians. 

 

I know I'll be in the minority on here, but I just don't tend to be on the side of regulations for the most part.

Europe is often a much stronger and more innovative market than the US because of the regulation, though.

While the US has the potential for much more profit in the end, it also comes at the price of being potentially very volatile. Europe is much safer in that regard and also enables the free market to..stay free, so to speak. If you let companies run their business as they want, then you'll end up with the current situation in the US where a very small handfull of companies controls the *entirety* of the US market, surpressing the "free market" making sure no one will ever topple them with just sheer money.

 

It's part of the reason why the most profitable strategy for tech companies starting up today is to get investors on-board, become a runaway success or "unicorn" and then get bought out for millions, or in rare cases billions, so they can do something else or simply start another company to repeat the process.

 

Being against regulation is a net loss for consumers such as yourself. No company is your friend. None.

[Arika]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You come in to this thread and laughs at me and say I am tragic because I am so out of touch with reality. Then when I question you, your response is basically "well who knows, maybe I am wrong. I know a few old MacOS and they don't do what you say"? OK..

this reminds me of a scene from the Obi-wan Kenobi show where Darth Vader has been chasing Kenobi half way across the universe, finds the planet he's on, lands his ship right next to him, walks up to him and asks "have you come here to kill me?"

 

 

[HenrySalayne]

On 11/6/2022 at 8:51 PM, LAwLz said:

By the way, I think you missed the overall point of my post since you got very focused on the particular wording in one sentence.

No, your argument wasn't even relevant. It's about stating things which are most likely untrue and using phrases which are factually wrong. Let's revisit the original paragraph.

On 11/4/2022 at 9:15 AM, LAwLz said:

I think an even better example of how it isn't the end of the world would be MacOS. You can sideload on that too, yet most people choose not to. Because the app store on MacOS has everything people want and need to begin with and provides a better experience.

- it's not sideloading. The term means something completely different. To call every process sideloading just because it doesn't use the preferred method of the company supplying the OS is a gross misrepresentation. And it puts a negative connotation to said process, especially if it's the standard and has been the standard for many years.

- "most people" is also most likely wrong. From my own experience, recurring Mac costumers use many ways to install software and not the Mac app store exclusively. This includes steam or direct downloads. The only thing I excluded are recent first time buyers, because - I don't know any. But it seems even more unlikely that 95% of the Mac userbase consists of people who have bought their first Mac in the past 3 years.

- the Mac store does not have everything people want, especially professional users*

- "a better experience" seems rather dubious after I had my first experience in very long time with the iOS app store today. How much ads and sponsored apps can you shove in my face while hiding the actual apps I'm looking for? I'm searching for WhatsApp and the first search result is Google Maps. Seriously?

 

On 11/6/2022 at 8:51 PM, LAwLz said:

If it is in contrast with reality then I'd like for you to show some evidence of that. 

Ah, the good ol' impossible proof of non-existence stunt we know from popular formats like religion. No, thanks.

Haven't seen any evidence on your side either. Maybe because there is none.

 

Spoiler

* I don't have access to the app store but only two Adobe apps are available on the Mac app store? EVERYTHING!

 

[mr moose]

13 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

 

- it's not sideloading. The term means something completely different. To call every process sideloading just because it doesn't use the preferred method of the company supplying the OS is a gross misrepresentation. And it puts a negative connotation to said process, especially if it's the standard and has been the standard for many years.

 

 

Whilst I don't want to get in to the argument specifically, the definition for sideloading in such discussions is a loose one.  For all intents an purposes the point of using the term in reference to mac os or to windows is not to point out a technical etymological issue, but to highlight a comparable situation where the outcome either is different to what is claimed would be the outcome if it was enabled on said devices. Or it is used to highlight that it should be considered just as bad on windows and mac if the antagonist was being un biased in their judgment on each product.

 

In other words the term is being used colloquially to infer the ability to install software from any source.  Whether this is good or bad deserves the debate, not the semantics of the words.

[Brooksie359]

On 11/6/2022 at 8:30 PM, Omni-Owl said:

Europe is often a much stronger and more innovative market than the US because of the regulation, though.

While the US has the potential for much more profit in the end, it also comes at the price of being potentially very volatile. Europe is much safer in that regard and also enables the free market to..stay free, so to speak. If you let companies run their business as they want, then you'll end up with the current situation in the US where a very small handfull of companies controls the *entirety* of the US market, surpressing the "free market" making sure no one will ever topple them with just sheer money.

 

It's part of the reason why the most profitable strategy for tech companies starting up today is to get investors on-board, become a runaway success or "unicorn" and then get bought out for millions, or in rare cases billions, so they can do something else or simply start another company to repeat the process.

 

Being against regulation is a net loss for consumers such as yourself. No company is your friend. None.

Honestly I laugh when people talk about a free market when talking about a well regulated market. Free markets aren't regulated otherwise people aren't free to do whatever they want. Obviously free markers don't work which is why most places have well regulated markets as it tends to stop some of the bad things people do in the name of profit. That being said I do not see an issue with what Apple is currently doing and really don't see why they should have to open up their platform when part of the apple appeal was it was a relatively closes platform. 

[HenrySalayne]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

In other words the term is being used colloquially to infer the ability to install software from any source.  Whether this is good or bad deserves the debate, not the semantics of the words.

Colloquially? You mean incorrectly?

 

I hear the term "sideloading" in a majority of cases with a negative connotation and rarely in a positive sense.

While it could make sense to use the term "sideloading" with iOS and Android because of the history of these platforms, for Windows, Linux and Mac there is no connection. It sets a scene in which every other way of installing software besided the default store is a janky and weird high-risk eendeavou "on the side". Which is simply not the case. We have seen time and time again how malware and buggy software was distributed via the default stores.

5 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

That being said I do not see an issue with what Apple is currently doing and really don't see why they should have to open up their platform when part of the apple appeal was it was a relatively closes platform. 

I cannot stress this enough: none of the recent regulatory actions done by the EU targets Apple specificially. They all came to life to stop harmful business practices and improve the interoperability for consumers. That Apple ticked every single box on almost all of these just shows how bad the situation actually is.

And nobody (except Apple) forces you nor anyone else to install apps you don't want. So you can live peacefully in your cell while others - who want to - can roam freely.

[Holmes108]

57 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

 

I cannot stress this enough: none of the recent regulatory actions done by the EU targets Apple specificially. They all came to life to stop harmful business practices and improve the interoperability for consumers. That Apple ticked every single box on almost all of these just shows how bad the situation actually is.

And nobody (except Apple) forces you nor anyone else to install apps you don't want. So you can live peacefully in your cell while others - who want to - can roam freely.

None of this is incorrect, and it's also true that things like this (regulation) can be great for consumers (at least short term). But even if there were no downsides, that doesn't mean we will all fundamentally agree that it's the governments place to do so. I personally think it always needs to be thought about really long and hard whether something needs to be legislated. Slippery slope and all that.

[Guest]

All I see is, Apple could try to make it work outside of its walled garden.

 

If only they could force Apple to make AirDrop interoperable with Google's Nearby Share and a non-Mac PC!

 

Just kidding, they probably won't.

 

Maybe you could suggest me AirDrop substitutes if there were any.

[HenrySalayne]

46 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

None of this is incorrect, and it's also true that things like this (regulation) can be great for consumers (at least short term). But even if there were no downsides, that doesn't mean we will all fundamentally agree that it's the governments place to do so. I personally think it always needs to be thought about really long and hard whether something needs to be legislated. Slippery slope and all that.

I think you have some homework to do.

- the European parliament is the legislature and not a government (would be the European commission)

- the European commission proposed this regulation in 2020 to the parliament - so it is not recent and even before that much work and time was put into creating this regulation

- regulations don't need to be in place indefinitely and can be adjusted to new developments accordingly

- the EU sent hundreds of admonitions to companies - but they choose to ignore them

 

Not all regulations by the EU are great, but they are making sure we don't have a single ACME behind everything. They paddled Microsoft and Google and rightfully so.

[Holmes108]

3 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I think you have some homework to do.

- the European parliament is the legislature and not a government (would be the European commission)

- the European commission proposed this regulation in 2020 to the parliament - so it is not recent and even before that much work and time was put into creating this regulation

- regulations don't need to be in place indefinitely and can be adjusted to new developments accordingly

- the EU sent hundreds of admonitions to companies - but they choose to ignore them

 

Not all regulations by the EU are great, but they are making sure we don't have a single ACME behind everything. They paddled Microsoft and Google and rightfully so.

"Government" is semantics. It's about regulation in general. The rest of it is just opinion, as to the value of it. 

[HenrySalayne]

2 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

"Government" is semantics.

I don't know if you live in a country with a clown fiesta as a government (which is like half of the world right now), but in some parts of this world the separation of powers is still in place and mostly working. So yes, semantics matter.

5 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

It's about regulation in general. The rest of it is just opinion, as to the value of it. 

You're entire life is based on regulations. Our ancestors even invented imaginary overlords to regulate how we live with each other. So being against "regulation in general" is contradicting 2000 years of social evolution. Since some of the more "special" members of our community can't even be bothered to properly return a shopping cart, how do you think this world would look without regulation? It would have been greatly beneficial for the environment, because we would still live like cavemen.

[Holmes108]

41 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I don't know if you live in a country with a clown fiesta as a government (which is like half of the world right now), but in some parts of this world the separation of powers is still in place and mostly working. So yes, semantics matter.

You're entire life is based on regulations. Our ancestors even invented imaginary overlords to regulate how we live with each other. So being against "regulation in general" is contradicting 2000 years of social evolution. Since some of the more "special" members of our community can't even be bothered to properly return a shopping cart, how do you think this world would look without regulation? It would have been greatly beneficial for the environment, because we would still live like cavemen.

 

Nothing is so black and white. I'm not against all regulations by a mile. I'm no anarchist or even libertarian, but yes, the idea any regulatory body would even potentially involve itself in the "interoperability of imessage" is the absolute peak of ridiculousness to me, and the worst example of being a nanny state. I don't want any time or money spent on that.

 

At least with the chargers, there's some argument to be made about e-waste, even though issues are never as simple as "it will be better" or "it will be worse". I still think it's an overstep, but I can at least see the logic, even if I find it misguided.

 

And at the very least, I try and be very consistent with my views... I absolutely hate the locked down nature of Apple and dislike them for a variety of other reasons. But I just go android then. Unfortunately, I've seen too many examples of hypocrisy from the pro-regulation crowd. A decent majority of people just want things they like, or find convenient regulated without putting much thought into it, and then feel very different if a regulation would affect them negatively. (you almost can't blame them, it's human nature)

 

The slippery slope argument is a little cliche at times, but it applies. It's like privacy concerns... the little things matter. Because give an inch today, they take a mile tomorrow, and it only ever goes in one direction, never back. 

 

Slippery slope doesn't mean no regulation. It just means exactly what I said. It needs to be taken extremely seriously and thoughtfully. But too many people are of the mindset of "This videogame expansion is too expensive! This price should be illegal!" (and are dead serious) which always makes me cringe. 

 

That may not be everyone, and may not be you, but it's definitely a thing. Everyone wants everything taken care of for them, when it's not always necessary. 

[HenrySalayne]

11 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

I'm no anarchist or even libertarian, but yes, the idea any regulatory body would even potentially involve itself in the "interoperability of imessage" is the absolute peak of ridiculousness to me

This is only a tiny implication of a much wider list of obligations. Generally speaking it is quite similar to FRAND but applies to digital markets. I think I will be just quoting Wikipedia for the details:

Quote

The list of obligations would include prohibitions on combining data collected from two different services belonging to the same company (e.g. Facebook and WhatsApp^[7]); provisions for the protection of platforms' business users (including advertisers and publishers); legal instruments against the self-preferencing methods used by platforms for promoting their own products (preferential results for Google's products when using Google Search^[8]); articles concerning the pre-installation of some services (Android^[9]); regulation related to bundling practices; provisions for ensuring interoperability, portability, and access to data for businesses and end-users of platforms.^[5][10]

 

Is every part of this regulation an absolute necessity? Probably not. Was interfering necessary to level the playing field? YES. This is a HUGE step for smaller endeavours and consumers. Now a smaller company like our friends from Floatplane can take action and are no longer the playing ball of Apple and Google.

 

[Holmes108]

35 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

This is only a tiny implication of a much wider list of obligations. Generally speaking it is quite similar to FRAND but applies to digital markets. I think I will be just quoting Wikipedia for the details:

 

Is every part of this regulation an absolute necessity? Probably not. Was interfering necessary to level the playing field? YES. This is a HUGE step for smaller endeavours and consumers. Now a smaller company like our friends from Floatplane can take action and are no longer the playing ball of Apple and Google.

 

 

I admit, the anti-competition stuff is some of the regulations I struggle with the most (as in I'm often torn on them). I understand they're necessary to some degree in our system, but I also am a firm believer in letting people run their business as they see fit (within reason). It's hard to say at what point you start punishing a company simply for being successful. 

 

There's more obvious situations where you need to regulate water, electricity, etc... But it gets dicey when you're talking non-essentials (although I will grant sometimes necessary). 

 

Like if Microsoft wanted to ban all 3rd party web browsers tomorrow, and block "sideloading" (har har) others, I think that should be their right. I'd be furious. I'd think it's antithetical to everything your computer should be about (installing what you want), and I'd support boycotts and letter campaigns. I'm a windows lover, and a chrome fan boy. But it's their software. They should be able to do what they want.

 

Price fixing gasoline? Stop that shit. Price fixing hamburgers? I'm not so ready to jump in. At what point is a monopoly a problem for a non essential industry? I don't have that answer. I'd say there usually is a tipping point though, yes. But my threshold tends to be much higher than some other peoples I guess. 

 

All I can do is look at each situation on a case by case basis. It's hard to let it be so subjective though, when you're trying to set up some sort of general guidelines though.

 

Edit: Sorry the last couple messages are walls of text. I try and be thorough on more complex issues because there's so much nuance, and I'm about as far away from a "the government is bad!" tin foil hat person as there is, but it's too easy to be dismissed as either a left or right extremist in online conversations these days when you disagree with someone.

[Omni-Owl]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly I laugh when people talk about a free market when talking about a well regulated market. Free markets aren't regulated otherwise people aren't free to do whatever they want. Obviously free markers don't work which is why most places have well regulated markets as it tends to stop some of the bad things people do in the name of profit. That being said I do not see an issue with what Apple is currently doing and really don't see why they should have to open up their platform when part of the apple appeal was it was a relatively closes platform. 

A free market is only a fantasy if you don't have regulation. It's that simple.

Because quite naturally, if companies get to do whatever they want, you end up with the US where regulation is lax and huge companies suppress all other companies attempts at competing with them through lobbying and just sheer power through the amount of money they have to throw at any given problem.

 

Giving other companies the means to compete is what creates the free market that consumers want. One where the largest companies will stay large...if they actually compete and don't stagnate.

[Omni-Owl]

2 hours ago, Holmes108 said:

 

I admit, the anti-competition stuff is some of the regulations I struggle with the most (as in I'm often torn on them). I understand they're necessary to some degree in our system, but I also am a firm believer in letting people run their business as they see fit (within reason). It's hard to say at what point you start punishing a company simply for being successful. 

 

There's more obvious situations where you need to regulate water, electricity, etc... But it gets dicey when you're talking non-essentials (although I will grant sometimes necessary). 

 

Like if Microsoft wanted to ban all 3rd party web browsers tomorrow, and block "sideloading" (har har) others, I think that should be their right. I'd be furious. I'd think it's antithetical to everything your computer should be about (installing what you want), and I'd support boycotts and letter campaigns. I'm a windows lover, and a chrome fan boy. But it's their software. They should be able to do what they want.

 

Price fixing gasoline? Stop that shit. Price fixing hamburgers? I'm not so ready to jump in. At what point is a monopoly a problem for a non essential industry? I don't have that answer. I'd say there usually is a tipping point though, yes. But my threshold tends to be much higher than some other peoples I guess. 

 

All I can do is look at each situation on a case by case basis. It's hard to let it be so subjective though, when you're trying to set up some sort of general guidelines though.

 

Edit: Sorry the last couple messages are walls of text. I try and be thorough on more complex issues because there's so much nuance, and I'm about as far away from a "the government is bad!" tin foil hat person as there is, but it's too easy to be dismissed as either a left or right extremist in online conversations these days when you disagree with someone.

That's a nice thought. It just doesn't work in practice. Regulation is *necessary* absolutely.

To make sure companies do not get to be anti-competitive where possible regulations are needed. Your examples of "Well a company should get to run their business as they please" is simply not feasible once a company starts growing big enough and not even before that.

 

Why is it we should bow to companies and how they want to run? Without us, the consumers, there is no business. We should have consumer rights, we should have regulation. Because without it we'll end up with stagnating companies that have no incentive to improve. No threat of being knocked off the throne if they can calcify their industry of choice because they'll always have enough money to just, brush it off or buy them up (see: The US of A)

 

Essentially, your view is alive and well in the US so to speak. There is so little regulation, so much lobbying and immense levels of corruption throughout the system, that if you look at that and go "Yeah, that seems like a reasonable way to run companies" then you are essentially agreeing to a "Corporatocracy". A place where corporations rule and governments will say "how high?" whenever they say "jump".

 

That is a dystopian future if I ever heard of one. One that I simply cannot relate to.

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Omni-Owl said:

A free market is only a fantasy if you don't have regulation. It's that simple.

Because quite naturally, if companies get to do whatever they want, you end up with the US where regulation is lax and huge companies suppress all other companies attempts at competing with them through lobbying and just sheer power through the amount of money they have to throw at any given problem.

 

Giving other companies the means to compete is what creates the free market that consumers want. One where the largest companies will stay large...if they actually compete and don't stagnate.

If you have regulations then it is no longer a free market by definition. Free markets don't work as left to their own devices most people will start doing stupid things that are harmful to others just so they can get ahead. 

[Omni-Owl]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you have regulations then it is no longer a free market by definition.

This is correct. By the definition of what a "Free Market" is, what I said would not be that as described. However, the idea of a free market only works on paper. Not in practice. Which means that for it to work, you need to have checks and balances in place to prevent monopolies and other anti-competitve behaviour. Which leads me to the second part:

3 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Free markets don't work as left to their own devices most people will start doing stupid things that are harmful to others just so they can get ahead. 

Because of the above, this is incorrect. A free market will always trend towards becoming an implicitly regulated market. The regulators are just the most influental companies rather than a governmental body. You essentially create a Corpocracy. You want the concept of a free market or do you want the Corpocracy?

If you want the free market, you should be pro-regulation. It makes sure anyone actually has the chance to compete and keeps big companies innovative because they can't bully other companies out of the market and stagnate.

[Sebendipitous]

On 11/2/2022 at 3:51 PM, Holmes108 said:

I'm not a fan of Apple, and went with Android in the early days specifically because of this type of stuff (sideloading, etc), but I also don't agree with all this regulation, and in general believe that people should be able to run their business how they see fit (with some obvious exceptions relating to safety, essential goods, etc). 

 

As much as I'd like to occasionally see arrogant Apple fall on their face, in this case I'd almost like to see them leave Europe (will never happen), and let the angry customers take it out on their politicians. 

 

I know I'll be in the minority on here, but I just don't tend to be on the side of regulations for the most part.

I agree with you here boss, the EU needs to stub their toe

[LAwLz]

On 11/7/2022 at 9:58 PM, HenrySalayne said:

- it's not sideloading. The term means something completely different. To call every process sideloading just because it doesn't use the preferred method of the company supplying the OS is a gross misrepresentation. And it puts a negative connotation to said process, especially if it's the standard and has been the standard for many years.

14 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Colloquially? You mean incorrectly?

Can you please link me to a definition of "sideloading" that isn't some form of "installing apps from outside sources rather than the officially sanctioned app store"? Aka, a definition that fits installing apps on MacOS from outside the Mac app store.

 

Define sideloading:

Wikipedia:

Quote

When referring to Android apps, "sideloading" typically means installing an application package in APK format onto an Android device. Such packages are usually downloaded from websites other than the official app store Google Play. For Android users sideloading of apps is only possible if the user has allowed "Unknown Sources" in their Security Settings.^[1]

 

When referring to iOS apps, "sideloading" means installing an app in IPA format onto an Apple device, usually through the use of a computer program such as Cydia Impactor,^[2] Xcode, on the actual device using a jailbreak method or using a signing service instead of through Apple's App Store. On modern versions of iOS, the sources of the apps must be trusted by both Apple and the user in "profiles and device management" in settings; except when using jailbreak methods of sideloading apps. Sideloading is not allowed by Apple except for internal testing and development of apps using the official SDKs.^[3]

If we remove all the specifics regarding the platforms (such as "in Android apps are installed through APK formats"), installing a program downloaded from a developers website on MacOS fits the description perfectly.

 

How-To Geek:

Quote

Sideloading is the practice of installing software on a device without using the approved app store or software distribution channel. Some devices allow this without modification and others need to be “jailbroken” to make sideloading possible. Either way, should you?

MacOS falls into the "device that allows this without modification" and the description matches perfectly.

Although, in some cases you do actually have to modify settings in the OS to install programs on MacOS that isn't approved by Apple. By default, MacOS only allows you to install software from the app store or from developers that have been approved by Apple (by being given a cryptographic key to sign their installers with, provided by Apple).

 

TechTarget:

Quote

Sideloading is the installation of an application on a mobile device without using the device’s official application-distribution method.

If we ignore the word "mobile device", does this not fit the description of MacOS perfectly as well? Besides, a lot of people would say that a laptop is a mobile device. But I think that's stretching it a bit. In any case, the description of "sideloading" fits perfectly. In fact, the process is more or less the same on Android as it is on MacOS.

 

Lifewire:

Quote

Most people won't ever have to worry about sideloading apps. The only real reason to sideload an app is to bypass the official app store, which is only required if you want to install an app that isn't available through official channels.

 

If you want to install a modded version of Android, like CyanogenMod, then you need to sideload it. You'll also need to sideload an app if you really want, or need, to use it, and it isn't available from the official store. Sideloading is also useful if you want to install an app that isn't available through official sources in the geographical location where you live.

Does this not sound just like what I said earlier?

 

I think you get the point.

Yes, it is true that when people talk about sideloading they generally refer to "installing an app from outside the app store on iOS or Android", but I don't see any reason to call it "sideloading" on a smartphone, but on a laptop call it something else when it is the same thing.

I especially don't see the reason to make a distinction when the point of my post was to highlight similarities between MacOS and iOS, and how things will probably play out if they became more similar in this regard.

This is why it is kind of annoying that you ignored half my post and got caught up on some particular wording in the first half. Because the second half, if you look at the big picture, explains why I worded things the way I did.

 

 

This idea that "sideloading" is a negatively charged word and that's why you object to me using it to describe installing software on MacOS from non-store sources, that's a you problem, not a me problem.

Personally, I don't think "sideloading" is a negatively charged word. I honestly find this conversation quite bizarre because you seem to have gotten really offended by me using a word that I didn't even know was offensive. To me, sideloading just means installing software from outside the OS developer's official store, such as an installer downloaded through a web browser.

[mr moose]

16 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Colloquially? You mean incorrectly?

 

 

No, I meant what I said, the term is used to compare app installation on two different devices.  You know what LawLz is saying because he explained it to you, You now know what I mean because I also explained it.  If you don't want to debate the issue at hand that is fine, but you can't use semantics to argue against other people when they have explained to you that your specific definition of the word is not what they meant. 

 

You now know what they mean when they say sideloading on macos. 

[Mark Kaine]

Is this the law that lets you remove the google account requirement for Android,  and lets you remove certain preinstalled programs which is currently not possible,  such as galaxy store...?

 

i thought its already in effect... but apparently not, i still cannot delete galaxy store and other Samsung shenanigans from my phone for example...

 

On 11/3/2022 at 3:02 AM, hishnash said:

They would not need to geo-lock the device they can do the lock based on the address you provide when creating your Apple ID, (you need to provide payment info that matches the address).  

 

ok, now I'm confused,  why would you need an apple ID,  when this law makes exactly that requirement illegal?

 

i do remember this law proposal very well... its huge (lots of regularies for more user freedom)  i just thought its already in effect. 

 

And yes, i very much wonder how this is all getting enforced?

 

GDPR also sounds great in theory,  yet there are a plethora of big corporations simply not confirming with it  (they often don't even have the "cookies popup") yet nothing happens to them (just from recent experience,  valve and amd... no popups / user choices etc) 

 

^and i know valve at least typically has it, in this instance it didn't however (i removed all cookies etc beforehand,  incognito mode or not, no GDPR conformity whatsoever) 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

Is this the law that lets you remove the google account requirement for Android

No, because no such law needs to exist.

You do not need a Google account to use Android. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

and lets you remove certain preinstalled programs which is currently not possible,  such as galaxy store...?

Some countries has laws surrounding that. South Korea for example:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/south-korea-rules-pre-installed-phone-bloatware-must-be-deletable/

 

But these laws do not cover everything. For example it is okay to keep some things "unremovable" such as the store. That goes for all OSes, including Android, iOS, Windows and MacOS.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

ok, now I'm confused,  why would you need an apple ID,  when this law makes exactly that requirement illegal?

I am not sure what you are talking about. I don't think this law has anything to do with account requirements.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

GDPR also sounds great in theory,  yet there are a plethora of big corporations simply not confirming with it  (they often don't even have the "cookies popup") yet nothing happens to them (just from recent experience,  valve and amd... no popups / user choices etc) 

 

^and i know valve at least typically has it, in this instance it didn't however (i removed all cookies etc beforehand,  incognito mode or not, no GDPR conformity whatsoever) 

1) GDPR has nothing to do with the cookie popups (which were the result of the ePrivacy Directive in 2002). Those are two separate directives/laws.

2) I just visited AMD's website and it asked me about cookies. Are you sure you aren't blocking those? 

3) Only websites that use cookies and trackers need to ask users about it. If a website doesn't use cookies for storing info about the visitors then no popup is needed. For example when I visited valve's website I see that my browser stored 4 cookies, none of which seems to be collecting personal information. That's probably why no banner appears. On AMD's website on the other hand, 70 cookies gets stored, including several tracking cookies used for advertising. That's probably why AMD's website requires me to accept cookies.